In On Photography, Susan Sontag presents the hobby of taking photographs as a practice with deep cultural and sociological implications. Particularly, Sontag analyzes the morality of photography under sexual, psychological, and physical contexts. In doing so, Sontag raises points about photography that most people would never have even thought. Ultimately, I think Sontag's arguments about photography can be linked in parallel to the minds behind modern advertising.
On Photography begins by critiquing photographs as "more memorable than moving images, because they are a neat slice of time, not a flow." At first it details paintings and other succinct visual forms of art as things with "essential quality" whereas a photograph is "a more innocent, and therefore more accurate, relation to visible reality." She thus implies that essential quality pertains to an ability to incite different interpretations among different people. Other visual mediums give people more to imagine because it is an image that comes purely out of a painter's/artist's mind, whereas a photograph is a representation of what the photographer wants viewers to see. As a result, photographs are more absolute and concrete than other forms of art. Thus, they are much easier to remember because the viewer has to see everything in the photograph to understand it, but a painting viewer chooses what he sees in it.
While the viewer of a photograph is limited in the ways he can imagine it, the actual photographer has just the opposite. Unlike the viewer, the photographer actually experiences his photographs. The photographer chooses what he wishes to capture. In a world of mass production, the camera salesmen insist that photography "demands no skill or expert knowledge...the machine is all knowing..." Due in part to this, photograph viewers are generally desensitized to the meaning and experience the photographer had in order to take the photograph. Sontag finally makes the statement that the event of the photograph must be "named and characterized...[and] the [social] contribution of photography always follows the naming of the event." This statement only supports the idea that unlike any other form of art, photographs cannot evoke any response from their viewers although it is a representation of the photographer's thought.
Therefore, a photographer has the sole power of molding public opinion about his photographs. In its beginning, photography and all art acted as "an instrument of identification with the community and [aggrandization] of the artist as a heroic, romantic, and self-expressing ego." I think this idea ties really well with the motives of modern advertising. In the case of advertising, the advertiser is the artist, deciding what he wants the public to see about the particular point of interest. Advertising thus is not a representation of the whole context and truth. Similarly, photography is also not the whole truth because it is only one moment out of many, and does not establish context. At their best, both forms of media would make their own statements by themselves. Instead, other forces of culture and society have suppressed the power of both. Ultimately, Sontag laments that "the best of American photography has given itself over..." In all, I think Sontag makes a detailed and coherent critique of photography through her book.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Corporation
Michael Moore's documentary entitled The Corporation detailed the underpinnings of how a corporation works. As a documentary, The Corporation had a responsibility to show both sides of the argument, meaning the good and bad aspects of corporatism. I thought it did a commendable job trying to support all of its claims with unquestionably true evidence. Therefore, I found the documentary to be somewhat enlightening because of its accuracy. Although it blatantly opposed corporations, The Corporation actually produced a balanced argument at times.
First of all, The Corporation quotes the present-day corporation as a "legal person." In other words, everybody who is a part of the corporation is working toward the same goal of unmatched monetary success. The corporation thus works solely for profit, and everybody on board does so with that idea in mind. Therefore, the corporation is seen as one entity despite its numerous and varied people. However, all of its people are one entity only within the bounds of corporate law. If someone within the corporation has an idea that could be beneficial but leads to the corporation's demise, that person is no longer part of the corporate entity and will face consequences for it. As a result, The Corporation likens the modern corporation as a minimized form of fascism. After all, Mussolini did run the "Corporate State" government during his rule of Italy.
Yet the caustic effects of corporations only begin administratively. Beyond that, corporations are simply "machines of negative externality." According to Milton Friedman, a negative externality is an effect upon the rest of society that is hurtful but beyond the scope of the people who cause it. In many cases, environmental treatment is listed as the principal negative externality of many corporations. Some others include creating a greater rift between upper and lower classes, unnecessary competition and overproduction despite much milder demand, and complete disregard for its oppressive undertakings. Since corporations are defined by The Corporation to merely be bodies of profit, corporations work only toward that goal without considering their trails of destruction behind them. Therefore, the negative effects of corporations are treated as externalities rather than their own responsibilities.
Interestingly, all hope may not have been lost for corporations. Moore claims that corporations are completely unaware of their social tornadoes. However, the former CEO of Shell and other notable executives who run the corporate machines refute Moore saying that they do their work considering negative externalities. The only issue is that the corporations have not figured out an effective way to solve them yet. One CEO says that corporations can be their own solution to the problems they create as long as they work in conjunction with each other. I liken it to "one man's trash is another man's treasure." By establishing corporations to treat the negative externalities created by other corporations, we can harness the power of corporate focus and eliminate sets of problems. Ideally, every corporation would be treating some other corporation's mistakes, and corporations would have no negative effects upon society. The best we can do is only strive toward such a goal and at least limit the pervasiveness of negative externalities.
First of all, The Corporation quotes the present-day corporation as a "legal person." In other words, everybody who is a part of the corporation is working toward the same goal of unmatched monetary success. The corporation thus works solely for profit, and everybody on board does so with that idea in mind. Therefore, the corporation is seen as one entity despite its numerous and varied people. However, all of its people are one entity only within the bounds of corporate law. If someone within the corporation has an idea that could be beneficial but leads to the corporation's demise, that person is no longer part of the corporate entity and will face consequences for it. As a result, The Corporation likens the modern corporation as a minimized form of fascism. After all, Mussolini did run the "Corporate State" government during his rule of Italy.
Yet the caustic effects of corporations only begin administratively. Beyond that, corporations are simply "machines of negative externality." According to Milton Friedman, a negative externality is an effect upon the rest of society that is hurtful but beyond the scope of the people who cause it. In many cases, environmental treatment is listed as the principal negative externality of many corporations. Some others include creating a greater rift between upper and lower classes, unnecessary competition and overproduction despite much milder demand, and complete disregard for its oppressive undertakings. Since corporations are defined by The Corporation to merely be bodies of profit, corporations work only toward that goal without considering their trails of destruction behind them. Therefore, the negative effects of corporations are treated as externalities rather than their own responsibilities.
Interestingly, all hope may not have been lost for corporations. Moore claims that corporations are completely unaware of their social tornadoes. However, the former CEO of Shell and other notable executives who run the corporate machines refute Moore saying that they do their work considering negative externalities. The only issue is that the corporations have not figured out an effective way to solve them yet. One CEO says that corporations can be their own solution to the problems they create as long as they work in conjunction with each other. I liken it to "one man's trash is another man's treasure." By establishing corporations to treat the negative externalities created by other corporations, we can harness the power of corporate focus and eliminate sets of problems. Ideally, every corporation would be treating some other corporation's mistakes, and corporations would have no negative effects upon society. The best we can do is only strive toward such a goal and at least limit the pervasiveness of negative externalities.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
No Logo
No Logo by Naomi Klein is a book that speaks out against the pitfalls of corporate control and economy. It speaks all about the presence of anticorporatism on a large scale among the youth of the nation, possibly even the world. However, none of it would have sprouted if it were not for the seeming death grip that corporations have taken over consumers, as Klein illustrates with several examples.
One of Klein's points in the book is that corporatism and the idea of "robber baronism" began with the advent of mass production and industry. The key stimulators to the success of industry happened to be cheap labor and ever-growing corporate influence to the extent of global brainwashing. As a result, Klein is trying to emphasize that the corporate attitude breeds a ton of unrecognized negativity. At one point, Klein claims that corporations have little more than "...excitement inspired by manic renditions of globalization wear thin, revealing the cracks and fissures beneath its high-gloss facade." The "cracks and fissures" she alludes to include the presence of sweatshops, oppressed laborers who live in "designer slums", and a perhaps irreversibly deep economic divide. All of these and more are unforeseen side effects of corporatism.
Klein even goes on to say that corporatism has led to an emphasis on brand-name recognition. Through the brand-name, corporations could define themselves beyond the name of the company itself by virtue of a logo. Although the logo should supposedly serve as a static emblem of the company, Klein writes that it has instead created the entire marketing and advertising industry. Corporations have thus created an industry out of a need to upkeep the brand name.
However, the point here is that even the corporation's idea of creating an industry to publicize its product's quality is vulnerable. Although a corporation with a recognizable brand-name seems insurmountable, the "brand's death" is always looming. Keeping a brand name is costly, and a result the money gone into generating publicity is money that could have been used to upgrade and maintain a high level of quality. Therefore, someone else has the potential to create the same product or one even better than that of the corporation without many of the costs, creating bargains against the corporate. Consumers gradually started to like the idea of the bargain over the corporate. Soon enough, people rationalized that if corporations were "desperate enough to compete with no-names, then clearly the whole concept of branding had lost its currency." The corporation and the brand eventually did manage to rebound, but Klein writes with such an overwhelming tone against corporatism that it is easy to understand that corporations are far from perfect because they are most vulnerable at their pinnacles of productivity and success. She is ultimately trying to say that corporatism is a road the economy should not take.
One of Klein's points in the book is that corporatism and the idea of "robber baronism" began with the advent of mass production and industry. The key stimulators to the success of industry happened to be cheap labor and ever-growing corporate influence to the extent of global brainwashing. As a result, Klein is trying to emphasize that the corporate attitude breeds a ton of unrecognized negativity. At one point, Klein claims that corporations have little more than "...excitement inspired by manic renditions of globalization wear thin, revealing the cracks and fissures beneath its high-gloss facade." The "cracks and fissures" she alludes to include the presence of sweatshops, oppressed laborers who live in "designer slums", and a perhaps irreversibly deep economic divide. All of these and more are unforeseen side effects of corporatism.
Klein even goes on to say that corporatism has led to an emphasis on brand-name recognition. Through the brand-name, corporations could define themselves beyond the name of the company itself by virtue of a logo. Although the logo should supposedly serve as a static emblem of the company, Klein writes that it has instead created the entire marketing and advertising industry. Corporations have thus created an industry out of a need to upkeep the brand name.
However, the point here is that even the corporation's idea of creating an industry to publicize its product's quality is vulnerable. Although a corporation with a recognizable brand-name seems insurmountable, the "brand's death" is always looming. Keeping a brand name is costly, and a result the money gone into generating publicity is money that could have been used to upgrade and maintain a high level of quality. Therefore, someone else has the potential to create the same product or one even better than that of the corporation without many of the costs, creating bargains against the corporate. Consumers gradually started to like the idea of the bargain over the corporate. Soon enough, people rationalized that if corporations were "desperate enough to compete with no-names, then clearly the whole concept of branding had lost its currency." The corporation and the brand eventually did manage to rebound, but Klein writes with such an overwhelming tone against corporatism that it is easy to understand that corporations are far from perfect because they are most vulnerable at their pinnacles of productivity and success. She is ultimately trying to say that corporatism is a road the economy should not take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)